California courts at it again
OK, so explain this. The California Supreme Court has just ruled that people can sue Disney under laws designed to protect consumers of transportation services.
In the law there is a principle known as "assumption of the risk." Basically, what this means is that if you knowingly engage in an activity that a reasonable person knows or should know is dangerous and you get hurt it's your fault!
The "should know" part is what is important here. Government does not exist to protect you from yourself. If something looks dangerous, it probably is dangerous. Just because one million other people participated and did not get hurt does not mean you will not get hurt.
This is the problem with the ruling - the court is in effect saying that negligence on the part of Disney is no longer required in order for an injury claim to proceed. The ruling is not about the safety of the rides, it is simply about shifting the burden of proof. Under this ruling, the mere fact that I am injured is prima fascia evidence of Disney's guilt. This is in direct contravention to the principle of assumption of the risk.
Removal of the test for negligence means that the proximate cause of the injury is no longer considered. My actions cannot be used by Disney as a defense. If I climb over the safety barrier, dodge the ride attendants, and jump in front of the rollercoaster car and get hit, it's Disney's fault for not making the ride safer. Make no mistake - this is the effect of the ruling.
It's not rocket science. A reasonable person would look at the ride, see the violent motion, and reach the obvious conclusion that there is some potential for injury. If that person still chooses to ride, Disney cannot be held liable unless there is proof of negligence. This is a fundamental fact in tort law. I guess the 4 judges who voted in favor of this law missed that day of law school.
In the law there is a principle known as "assumption of the risk." Basically, what this means is that if you knowingly engage in an activity that a reasonable person knows or should know is dangerous and you get hurt it's your fault!
The "should know" part is what is important here. Government does not exist to protect you from yourself. If something looks dangerous, it probably is dangerous. Just because one million other people participated and did not get hurt does not mean you will not get hurt.
This is the problem with the ruling - the court is in effect saying that negligence on the part of Disney is no longer required in order for an injury claim to proceed. The ruling is not about the safety of the rides, it is simply about shifting the burden of proof. Under this ruling, the mere fact that I am injured is prima fascia evidence of Disney's guilt. This is in direct contravention to the principle of assumption of the risk.
Removal of the test for negligence means that the proximate cause of the injury is no longer considered. My actions cannot be used by Disney as a defense. If I climb over the safety barrier, dodge the ride attendants, and jump in front of the rollercoaster car and get hit, it's Disney's fault for not making the ride safer. Make no mistake - this is the effect of the ruling.
It's not rocket science. A reasonable person would look at the ride, see the violent motion, and reach the obvious conclusion that there is some potential for injury. If that person still chooses to ride, Disney cannot be held liable unless there is proof of negligence. This is a fundamental fact in tort law. I guess the 4 judges who voted in favor of this law missed that day of law school.
posted by exsubdriver at 12:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home